Allowed

Sunderlal Tuhiram Parashar v. the National Investigation Agency and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2021APEAL/380/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the bail appeal of an accused arraigned for conspiracy and unlawful weapons supply under IPC and Arms Act. The Court quashed the lower court's bail rejection because it incorrectly invoked UAPA bail bars, held section 25(1A) Arms Act was inapplicable, and granted bail with strict conditions including passport surrender and reporting.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; impugned bail order quashed; appellant released on bail on furnishing PR bond and complying with stringent reporting and non-interference conditions.

Sunderlal Tuhiram Parashar Vs the National Investigation… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2020

¶5

Mr.Sunderlal Tuhiram Parashar
Age : 62 years, Occ. Retired,
Residing at 179, Rajouri Apartment,
(Presently lodged at Mumbai Central)
Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai) … Appellant
Taluka Niphad, Dist. Nashik(Org. Accused No.3.)

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The National Investigation Agency,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
Cumballa Hill Telephone Exchange, 7th floor,
Peddar Road, Mumbai-26.....Respondents
2. The State of Maharashtra(Org. Complainant)

¶8

****

¶9

Mr. Mubin Solkar a/w. Mr. Amir Supariwala i/b Zara Salati for appellant.
Mr. Sandesh Patil a/w. Mr. Chintan Shah for respondent No.1-National
Investigation Agency.

¶10

Smt. S.D. Shinde, APP for respondent No.2-State.

¶11

****

¶12

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2021.09.29 16:09:41 +0530

¶13

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
 N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
Reserved for Judgment on : 24th September 2021.
Judgment Pronounced on : 29th September 2021.

¶14

******

¶15

JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.) :

¶16

This appeal, under section 21(4) of the National Investigation

¶17

Agency Act, 2008, is directed against an order dated 1st July 2019 passed

¶18

by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Greater Bombay, in Bail Application

¶19

1/13

¶20

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶21

¶22

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶23

No. 394 of 2019 in NIA Special Case No. 03/2019, whereby the prayer of
the appellant-accused No.3 to enlarge him on bail, came to be rejected.

¶24

Shorn of superfluities, the background leading to this appeal can be stated as under :-

¶25

(a) The appellant-accused No.3 came to be arraigned in FIR No.RC-01/2019/NIA-Mum, dated 10^th January 2019 for the offences punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Penal Code’), section 3, 7 read with 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’), section 37 read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (‘Police Act’) and sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), with co-accused Harpal Singh @ Raju @ Happy (A-1), Mohiuddin Siddiqui @ Mohin Khan @ Moin Khan (A-2) and wanted accused Gurjeet Singh Nijjar (WA-1).

¶26

(b) Initially, crime was registered at FIR No.13/2018 with ATS Police Station, Kalachowki, Mumbai against Harpal Singh (A-1) for the offences punishable under section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act and section 37(1) read with 135 of Police Act, with the allegation that on 2^nd December 2018, the accused No.1 was found in possession of country made pistol and five live cartridges. Subsequently, the provisions contained in sections 18

¶27

2/13

¶28

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶29

¶30

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶31

and 20 of UAPA were invoked. Eventually, NIA took over the
investigation and registered the above-numbered FIR.

¶32

(c) Post completion of investigation, NIA filed a charge-sheet alleging, inter-alia, that Harpal Singh (A-1), Moin Khan (A-2) and wanted accused Gurjeet Singh Nijjar (WA-1) entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit terrorist act for the formation of separate “Khalistan State” and thereby threatened the security, integrity and sovereignty of India and made attempts to revive Sikh Militancy. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the abovenamed accused arranged illegal weapons and ammunition and thereby committed the offences punishable under aforestated sections. As regards the appellant-accused No.3, it was alleged that a conspiracy was hatched between the appellant and Moin Khan (A-2) to provide and sell country made pistol and, in pursuance of that conspiracy, the appellant delivered a country made pistol to Moin Khan (A-2), which was, in turn, delivered to Harpal Singh (A-1) and, subsequently, recovered from the possession of Harpal Singh (A-1) and thus the appellant and the above-named co-accused, committed offences punishable under section 120B of the Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 read with 25 of the Arms Act.

¶33

3/13

¶34

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶35

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶36

¶37

(d) The appellant preferred an application for bail asserting that the appellant was a retired decorated Officer of Delhi Police. The appellant was in contact with Moin Khan (A-2) to elicit information relating to terrorist organisations such as Lashkar-eTaiba (LeT), Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) etc. The appellant had not supplied any firearm to Moin Khan (A-2). In any event, the appellant was not charged with the offences punishable under UAPA. Since the investigation had been complete, the pre-trial detention of the appellant was unwarranted.

¶38

(e) The learned Special Judge was persuaded to reject the application of the appellant opining, inter-alia, that the interdict contained in the proviso to section 43D(5) of UAPA against grant of bail came into operation. The accusation that the appellant had supplied country made pistol to Moin Khan (A-2), which was, in turn, delivered to Harpal Singh (A-1), member of Khalistan Organisation, appeared to be prima-facie true. Thus, the appellant was not entitled to be released on bail.

¶39

(f) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the accused No.3 is in appeal.

¶40

4/13

¶41

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶42

¶43

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶44

Prayer of the appellant to enlarge him on bail is opposed by the respondent No.1-NIA, by filing an affidavit in reply.

¶45

Admit. With the consent of the counsels for the parties, heard finally.

¶46

We have heard Mr. Mubin Solkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sandesh Patil, the learned special counsel for respondent No.1-NIA and Smt. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have perused the material on record including the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1-NIA.

¶47

Mr. Solkar, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed a manifest error in rejecting the application for bail by invoking the proviso to section 43D(5) of the UAPA as the appellant has not at all been charged for the offences punishable under sections 18 and 20 of UAPA, for which the co-accused Harpal Singh (A-1) and Moin Khan (A-2) stand charged. In contrast, the appellant has been arraigned for the offences punishable under section 120B of the Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 read with 25 of the Arms Act. Mr. Solkar would further urge that the charge for the offence punishable under section 7 read with 25(1A) of the Arms Act is also wholly misconceived as Harpal Singh (A-1) was not found in

¶48

5/13

¶49

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶50

¶51

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶52

possession of prohibited arms or ammunition, in contravention of section
7 of the Arms Act. Since the appellant has undergone more than two and
a half years of incarceration, against the maximum punishment of three
years imprisonment, which the offence punishable under section 3 read
with 25(1B) of the Arms Act entails, the appellant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.

¶53

In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission, we deem it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of charge formulated against the appellant and co-accused in the charge-sheet filed by the NIA. It reads as under :

¶54

“18.Charge :

¶55

That, the arrested Harpal Singh @ Raju @ Happy (A-1),
Mohiuddin Siddiqui @ Mohin Khan @ Moin Khan (A-2) and
wanted accused Gurjeet Singh Nijjar (WA-1) entered into
the criminal conspiracy hatched by them between January
2018 to December 2018 to commit terrorist act for the
formation of separate ‘Khalistan State’ and thereby
threatened the security, integrity and sovereignty of India
and has been making attempt to revive Sikh militancy.

¶56

 Wanted accused Gurjeet Singh Nijjar (WA-1), accused Harpal
Singh (A-1) and accused Moin Khan were used to post videos &
images containing praises of militant Jarnail Singh Bhinranwale,
Jagtar Singh Hawara (a convicted accused in assasination of Beant
Singh, former Chief Minister of Punjab), images & videos of
Operation Blue Star of 1984, Pro-Khalistani post related to Babbar
Khalsa International (BKI) with sole intention to motivate
likeminded Sikh youths and others to join the Khalistan movement
in India with an ultimate objective of separate ‘Khalistan State’. In
pursuance of said conspiracy they also arranged an illegal weapon
and ammunition thereby committed offences punishable under
section 120B of Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 7 r/w 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959, Section 37 r/w section 135 of The Bombay/Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951 and section 18 & 20 the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967.

¶57

 A conspiracy hatched between accused Sunder Lal Parashar
(A-3) and accused Moin Khan (A-2) for providing and sale of

¶58

6/13

¶59

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶60

¶61

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶62

country made illegal pistol. Accused Sunder Lal Parashar (A-3) had
given a country made pistol to accused Moin Khan (A-2) which was
further delivered/sold by accused Moin Khan to accused Harpal
Singh (A-1) which was later on recovered from the possession of
accused Harpal Singh (A-1) thereby the committed offences
punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3,
7 r/w. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶63

18.3The sanction of prosecution of accused Harpal Singh (A-
1), Moin Khan (A-2) and wanted accused Gurjeet Singh Nijjar (WA-
1) under section 45(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 has been obtained and enclosed herewith. The sanction under
section 39 of Arms Act, 1959 against Harpal Singh (A-1), Moin
Khan (A-2), Sunder Lal Prashar (A-3) and wanted accused Gurjeet
Singh Nijjar (WA-1) has also been obtained and enclosed
herewith………………..”

¶64

In the context of the aforesaid charge, Mr. Patil, the learned special counsel for NIA fairly submitted that the appellant has, in fact, been not charged for the offences punishable under UAPA. We find that the aforesaid stand of respondent No.1 is made amply clear in the affidavit in reply as well. Paragraph No. 5.21 of the affidavit in reply, inter-alia, reads as under :

¶65

“5.21That in reply to paras 48(ii) to 48(iv), it is
submitted that, this is a fact that applicant accused has not
been charge sheeted under the provision of UA(P) Act. He
has been charge sheeted under section 3, 7 r/w 25 of the
Arms Act and U/s 120(B) IPC.”

¶66

If the contents of the charge-sheet (extracted above) are read in conjunction with the aforesaid contention in the affidavit in reply, it becomes explicitly clear that the appellant has not been charged for the offences punishable under UAPA. The grievance of Mr. Solkar that the

¶67

7/13

¶68

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶69

¶70

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶71

learned Special Judge could not have invoked the bar contained in the
proviso to section 43D(5) of the UAPA, in the absence of a charge for the
offences punishable under UAPA qua the appellant, appears well merited.
Evidently, the learned Special Judge could not have rejected the prayer for
bail on the said count.

¶72

The second limb of the submission of Mr. Solkar based on inapplicability of section 7 of the Arms Act appears equally well founded. As indicated above, at best, the indictment against the appellant is that of supplying a country made pistol to Moin Khan (A-2). Even if the said allegation is taken at par, in our view, the invocation of section 7 of the Arms Act qua the appellant appears ex-facie unsustainable.

¶73

Section 7 of the Arms Act reads as under :

¶74

“7. Prohibition of acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale of prohibited arms or ― ― prohibited ammunition. No person shall (a) acquire, have in his possession or carry; or (b) [use, manufacture] sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove; or (c) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof; any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition unless he has been specially authorised by the Central Government in this behalf.”

¶75

Sub-section (1A) of section 25 prescribes punishment for acquisition, possession and carrying the prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7, of imprisonment for a term,

¶76

8/13

¶77

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶78

¶79

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶80

which may extend to ten years, and fine.

¶81

Section 2(h) and (i) define “prohibited ammunition” and

¶82

“prohibited arms” as under :

¶83

(h) “prohibited ammunition” means any ammunition
containing, or designed or adapted to contain, any
noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, and includes
rockets,bombs,grenades,
shells, 3[missiles,] articles designed for torpedo service
and submarine mining and such other articles as the
Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify to be prohibited ammunition;

¶84

(i) “prohibited arms” means—
(i) firearms so designed or adapted that, if pressure
is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged
until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine

¶85

containing the missiles is empty, or

¶86

(ii) weapons of any description designed or adapted
for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other such
thing, and includes artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-tank
firearms and such other arms as the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be
prohibited arms.

¶87

On a plain reading of aforesaid provisions, it becomes abundantly clear that section 25(1A) provides punishment for acquisition, possession and use of arms which are automatic, of sophisticated nature and have mass destruction potential. A country made pistol hardly satisfies the description of prohibited arms. Thus, the enhanced punishment prescribed under section 25(1A) for contravention of section 7 of Arms Act may not be attracted in the facts of the case at hand. Resultantly, the appellant can, in the peculiar facts of the case, be legitimately prosecuted

¶88

9/13

¶89

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶90

10 -

¶91

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶92

for the offences punishable under section 120B of the Penal Code and
25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act for contravention of the provisions contained in
section 3 of the said Act. The later offence entails maximum punishment
of three years imprisonment. Indisputably, the appellant has been in
custody since 24th April 2019. The appellant has, thus, suffered
incarceration for a period of 2 years and 5 months. Further incarceration
of the appellant, as an under-trial prisoner, therefore, appears wholly
unjustifiable.

¶93

Indisputably, the appellant had been a member of Delhi Police Force. It cannot be said that the appellant has no roots in society. In the context of the charge against the appellant, it does not appear that the release of the appellant would either hamper the further investigation or put hindrance in the trial. Nonetheless, we propose to impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the release of the appellant on bail does not either result in prejudice to the prosecution or impede the trial.

¶94

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶95

Hence, the following order :

¶96

O R D E R

¶97

(i) The appeal stands allowed.

¶98

(ii)The impugned order dated 1st July 2019 passed by the
learned Special Judge, NIA, Greater Bombay, in Bail

¶99

10/13

¶100

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶101

11 -

¶102

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶103

Application No. 394 of 2019 in NIA Special Case No. 03/2019
stands quashed and set aside.

¶104

(iii)The appellant-Mr.Sunderlal Tuhiram Parashar be released
on bail on furnishing a P.R bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) and one or two sureties in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, NIA Court.

¶105

(iv) The appellant shall report the N.I.A., Mumbai Branch on
the first Tuesday of every month between 10:00 am to 12:00
noon, for a period of six months from the date of his release.

¶106

(v)The appellant shall attend each and every date of the
proceeding before the NIA Court.

¶107

(vi) The appellant shall surrender his passport, if any (if not
already surrendered). If the appellant does not hold the
passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the NIA
Court.

¶108

(vii) The appellant shall not, either himself or through any
other person, tamper with the prosecution evidence and give
threats or inducement to any of prosecution witnesses.

¶109

(viii) The appellant shall not indulge in any activities similar
to the activities on the basis of which the appellant stands
prosecuted.

¶110

11/13

¶111

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶112

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶113

12 -

¶114

(ix)The appellant shall not try to establish communication
with the co-accused or any other person involved directly or
indirectly in similar activities, through any mode of
communication.

¶115

(x)The appellant shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of
the trial and in case delay is caused due to him, then his bail
would be liable to be cancelled.

¶116

(xi) In the event, the appellant violates any of the aforesaid
conditions, the relief of bail granted by this Court will be liable
to be cancelled.

¶117

(xii) After release of appellant on bail, he shall file
undertaking within two weeks before the NIA Court stating
therein that he will strictly abide by the conditions No. (iv) to
(xi) mentioned herein above.

¶118

(xiii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the
observations made in this judgment and order are limited to
the consideration of the question of grant of bail to the
appellant and they shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion which bears on the merits of the matter at the trial.
The learned Special Judge shall proceed with the trial against
the appellant and the co-accused uninfluenced by the

¶119

12/13

¶120

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶121

13 -

¶122

CRI-APPEAL-380-2020-J..doc

¶123

observations made hereinabove.

¶124

The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

¶125

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶126

At this stage, Mr. Chintan Shah, Advocate holding for Mr. Sandesh

¶127

Patil, the learned counsel for respondent-NIA prays for stay to the
execution and operation of this order.

¶128

For the reasons, which we have indicated in this judgment to
exercise discretion to release the appellant on bail, the prayer for stay
does not seem justifiable.q

¶129

Hence, the oral application for stay stands rejected.

¶130

 (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.)

¶131

13/13

¶132

Shraddha Talekar, PS

Sunderlal Tuhiram Parashar v. the National Investigation Agency and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunderlal Tuhiram Parashar v. the National Investigation Agency and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Murlidhar Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Varun Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mitesh Suresh Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sagar S/O Sambhaji Gule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh S/O Dattarya Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swapnil S/O Sambhaji Khatpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.